Epstein Politics Shift on the Hill
President Trump’s absurd effort to avoid an appearance of defeat by suddenly backing today’s expected House vote to force the Justice Department to turn over the Epstein files — that Trump already has the power to release — has changed the political calculus on the Hill, especially on the Senate side.
Not only has Trump’s move made it acceptable for GOP House members to vote yes to releasing the files, but new reporting makes it look likely that Senate Republicans will no longer bottle up the legislation to protect Trump.
“Now a growing number of GOP senators are open to giving the bill a vote,” Politico reports, “and some are wondering whether it might simply be sent to Trump’s desk by unanimous consent.”
Punchbowl has similar reporting: “Many Senate Republicans now believe the bill will ultimately pass. The question is how — and whether senators will be forced to take a roll-call vote.”
Trump himself even declared yesterday that he would sign the measure if it came to his desk. Believe him at your own risk.
But here’s the thing: Even if Trump is forced to sign it to keep up the appearance of having dodged a stinging defeat, there’s no reason to think the Justice Department will release anything damaging about Trump.
In the short term, no enforcing mechanism exists that would incentivize Justice Department officials or the Trump White House to abide by Congress’ demand. The Trump DOJ certainly won’t prosecute anyone for defying Congress. It’s not clear that the GOP-controlled Congress itself could enforce its demand, either legally or politically. Practically, there’s no real way for Congress to know if the Trump administration buries damaging documents or files.
Trump and the White House also seem to be leaving themselves a pretty big out. In his social media post suddenly declaring he didn’t care if the House Oversight Committee got the Epstein files, Trump caveated it by saying they “can have whatever they are legally entitled to.”
“Legally entitled to” is doing a lot of work there. The Trump White House and his DOJ will make that determination and can use it to throw a broad protective blanket over any evidence damaging to Trump.
That language was echoed to Politico by an unnamed White House official: “This idea that the federal government is in possession of documents that they can legally hand over with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, and we’re keeping them from the public is a fallacy, like, it’s not true.”
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) is defending the White House using similar language: “the Department of Justice has turned over what they’re legally allowed to turn over.”
All of which suggests managing expectations in this lawless new world where accountability and enforcement mechanisms have been removed. No need to throw one’s hands up and surrender, but the Epstein files scandal isn’t likely to have the denouement we’ve become conditioned to expect, not so long as the Justice Department is sidelined and Republicans control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Quote of the Day
There’s no small amount of schadenfreude in watching the Trump White House, hoisted on the petard of its own conspiracy-mongering, fretting that even releasing all the Epstein files won’t quiet the mob it whipped up:
“Are people ever going to be satisfied? No, because people in this country genuinely believe that the federal government is in possession of a list of pedophiles who work with Jeffrey Epstein. And that is just not true.”–unnamed White House official
I Sense a Trend Here …
- TPM’s Josh Marshall: Trump Has the Look of the Weak Horse; People Are Acting Accordingly
- WaPo: Trump faces a splintering GOP — and rare dissent from his party
- Politico: 7 signs Trump is losing his groove
- WSJ: Trump’s Grip on Republicans Shows First Signs of Slipping
- Michelle Goldberg: The MAGA Crackup Might Finally Be Here
Trump Uses DOJ for Epstein Damage Control
The NYT, on the 217 minutes between President Trump’s demand on Friday that the Justice Department investigate Democrats for the connections to Jeffrey Epstein and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s public acquiescence:
Ms. Bondi’s statement was an unmistakable demonstration of Mr. Trump’s near-total success in subordinating the Justice Department’s post-Watergate independence to his will. Friday was a milestone of sorts. The department was deployed, in effect, as an arm of the president’s rapid-response operation to help him muscle through a damaging news cycle, current and former officials said.
The Retribution: Jim Comey Edition
The prosecution of James Comey took multiple torpedoes below the waterline yesterday when a magistrate judge found an extraordinary number of examples of potential misconduct by investigators and prosecutors both in the current case against Comey and in a adjacent but different investigation during the Trump I presidency.
At issue was whether Comey should have access to the grand jury recordings and transcripts in his case. Comey completely prevailed in reaching the high bar he had to clear when the the magistrate judge found 11 independent bases for Comey to have access to the grand jury material.
Comey predicated his ask for the materials mostly on what he asserted were potential violations of attorney-client privilege, but the judge found startling incidents of alleged errors by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer who previously represented Trump personally and had no prosecutorial experience when she was installed as a dutiful loyalist after Trump ousted her predecessor for not seeking charges against Comey.
I have the full rundown on the judge’s remarkable ruling here.
Only the Best People
Miami U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones — who is spearheading the most sweeping of the Trump “investigate the investigators” retribution schemes — got such poor marks back when was an entry-level prosecutor in the same office that when he was nominated for the top spot in March, two of his former supervisors “quickly resigned, fearful that their new boss would push them out,” the WaPo reports.
… Crickets …
Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck revisits Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s “war on judges” speech to the Federalist Society Earlier this month:
Not only is this rhetoric and conduct unbecoming of anyone in the employ of the Department of Justice, let alone its top two officials, but it will surely lead to an increase in both (1) the very real threats that these lower-court judges are already facing; and (2) eroding public faith, at least among those who take Bondi and Blanche seriously, in the lower federal courts. It would be one thing if there were any substance to their charges, but there isn’t. And yet, you’d be hard-pressed to find any conservative groups, right-of-center law professors, or other right-wing commentators publicly criticizing these remarks or the broader attacks on lower federal courts emanating from this administration. I don’t say this lightly, but that is to their profound (and growing) discredit.
The Corruption: NEH Edition
What remains of the National Endowment for the Humanities — after the Trump layoffs, firings, and grant cancellations — is being used to funnel monies to handpicked recipients, many of whom have ties to conservative or religious institutions, the NYT reports.
Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!
